Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Lieberman told King that being an independent "put me in exactly the position I want to be in at this hyper-partisan, non-productive, divisive time in our politics". He added that "it gives me the latitude to try to be a bridge on a lot of different issues, to make things happen."

Lieberman's success as an independent candidate is of particular interest to politicos this week as Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) is reportedly leaning toward an independent candidacy for Senate -- a decision he must make by the end of the week. (For what it's worth we keep hearing Thursday as the date when Crist will make his plan public.)

Lieberman largely avoided offering any specific commentary on Crist citing the fact that "every campaign -- every individual -- is a different situation" but his comments about his own independent candidacy could be read as a subtle "come on in, the water's fine" message to Crist.

It remains to be seen whether Lieberman will run for a fifth term in 2012. If he does, he will have stiff competition in the form of Rep. Chris Murphy and possibly other Democrats -- including 2006 Senate nominee Ned Lamont -- depending on the outcome of state races in Connecticut this year.

If Crist runs as an independent, Lieberman may well look to that race for lessons (or warnings) of what he might face in 2010. Of course, as we argued last week, there are enough differences between the two men and their campaigns that drawing hard and fast conclusions about the impact of either one on the other doesn't make much sense.

Lieberman on the importance of being Lieberman. Of course, he can't compare himself to any other candidate, as he thinks of himself as exceptional. I don't think he'll be crowing quite so loudly when his term is up and he has to run again.

@DDAWD: Frankly I believe Michael Brown was a fall guy. Yeah he was way over his head but I think he was engaged and did all he could, but he'd been set up in the first place. Nobody to be proud of but not the villainous fool he's been painted.

Whitman is worth much harsher judgment. She like many regulatory appointees was dedicated to thwarting the core operations of their agencies for ideological reasons. But in Whitman's case it led to people dying and being maimed, to polluted air and water, to habitat destruction and the loss of species.
I find the dishonesty of having government agencies administered by people determined that they should fail is simply appalling.

And it was true. It seemed like every damn agency under the Bush administration was grossly incompetent. The gravest example was when Mike Brown left thousands of people to die in New Orleans after Katrina. Another example was CTW as the head of the EPA suppressing information on the hazardous conditions of ground zero when it came to non-rescue operations. I remember being struck when people were cheering at Obama's promise to restore minimum competency to government. It was a sign as to how far we had fallen that even the promise of minimal competency was a cheering point.

You are right. We hear all these years about how government can do nothing right, they're a complete bunch of morons, yadda yadda. While I don't buy into that notion, it must sink in somewhat, because I too was surprised at the competence of the SEC. Well, I sure as hell hope so, because we rely on the SEC to do its job. Can you imagine privatizing the SEC? We might as well turn our pockets inside out and let Wall Street just take what they want.

Well, right now the cops are doing more than simply witnessing. They have levied charges against G-S. But what struck me about that column is how competent the SEC came across. After these years of Bush just completely defanging every single branch and department of the executive, it's really refreshing to see some competence being restored This was one of the most basic premises behind the Obama campaign. Government can work if you get good people running it.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 27, 2010 12:47 AM
-----------------------------------
I did. I like the "cop on the beat" idea. Unfortunately, GS and the other banks have abandoned any semblance of restraint and fair dealing, that I'm afraid the obvious cops will do little more than witness. Some years ago Wall Street seemed to place some value on being the "wise men" of the universe. Now it's ok with them to be the wise guys on the street.

"The finance ministers and central bank governors of the world are in Washington this weekend for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund. As is usual, the world’s megabanks are also in town in force, organizing big meetings and small dinners.

Through these meetings dutifully troop US treasury officials, providing in-depth and off-the-record briefings to investors.

Banks such as JP Morgan Chase and the other top tier financial players thus peddle influence, leverage their access, and generally show off. They accumulate information from a host of official contacts and discern which way policymakers – their “good friends” – are leaning.

And what is the megabank whisper mill working on? Ignore the “economic research” papers these banks put out; that is pure pantomime for clients-to-be-duped-later. I’m talking about what they are telling the market – communicated in specific, personal conversations this weekend.

They are telling people that, based on their inside knowledge, Greece and potentially other eurozone countries will default on their debt. Perhaps they are telling the truth and perhaps they are lying. Most likely they are – as always – talking their book."

Well, whatever, I don't see what good it does to call for 37th's ban. If Chris C gets some weird sexual thrill out of 37th's racism, then you can't expect for him to do much about it. We all take em where we can get em.

Mark, I doubt Dems will peel off exactly one Republican. There's just too much political cost to being the only one. Whoever it is would have to answer to McConnell and Cornyn. It's much easier to do so as a member of a few Republicans than as the only one.

"Large global banks make money, in part, through nontransparent manipulation of information – this is the heart of the SEC charges against Goldman Sachs. But the problem is much broader: the Wall Street-Washington corridor is alive and well on its way to another crisis that will empower, enrich, and embolden insiders (public and private) while impoverishing the rest of us.

The big players on Wall Street are powerful like never before – and they use this power to press for information and favors from sympathetic (or scared) government officials. The big banks also appear hell-bent on abusing that power. One consequence will be further destabilizing global financial markets – watch carefully what happens to Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain at the beginning of next week.

It is time for Congress to step in with a full investigation of the exact flow of information and advice between our major megabanks and key treasury officials. Start by asking tough questions about exactly who exchanged what kind of specific, material, market-moving information with whom this weekend in Washington."

I agree that we need regulation that is effective. My fear is Congress has sold out to Wall Street and what we're getting is some kind of clever game to think we're getting some regulation, and it's really toothless. Absolutely, more important that HCR. While I want HCR, we must have financial regulation, or we'll all transfer the rest of our portfolios to the likes of GS.

I just want to tell everyone that I was simply putting up with the jam/spam mode that 37th gets into, until today, when CC made it clear that that mode is acceptable to him. Then, I wrote some comments to 37th that are not my usual style, but I was so disgusted with CC that he's just going to let this go on. No where else is this repetitive posting allowed, just here. Not even other WaPo blogs, just THIS one.

I don't think that we should be blaming each other. I don't even think we should be expecting 37th to curtail himself. For whatever set of reasons, he believes he is entitled to jamming posts that no one else does, because he feels outnumbered. He can't and won't censor himself because he obviously feels a victim.

We should place the blame exactly where it belongs--on the management of the Fix, because software alone would solve a lot of this problem.

12BB, this amalgamated bill, with teeth, was and is far more important to the body politic than HCR. I think you share my view. I think that the Rs will only get one anti-cloture vote on party lines - there are at least half a dozen Rs who will not remain bound to vote the party line a second time. Call me on this later if I prove mistaken, by all means.

I look forward to Senate passage this week and a month of conferencing with the House. I hope the result then is a strong law, one that Simon Johnson and Nouriel Roubini can approve.

BB, I think the fact you know CC socially has colored your view. In the past I've taken your expressions of equanimity at face value but I must admit I find this latest one more than a little contemptible. And insulting.

You note there have been bannings. That means that what remains has CC's approval. I do believe that CC could take out the trash around here if he wanted, could do so in minutes if not seconds, but that he actually approves of 37th's jamming and has every intention of letting it go on, no matter how many worthy posters it drives away.

And if you believe there is some solution on the way, you must be terribly naive. Web development doesn't take that long. I could have access to the servers and get a Block Poster implemented in a few days and I'm not even a webdev... the pros could write it in an shout.

He's lying, just like in those "I'm concerned" and "Noacoler is the real problem here" posts.

If individuals choose to flaunt the "full rules", the current system doesn't have an effective response. The Post management is aware of the problem and I believe is working on a solution. Meanwhile, I'll skip past the dross and look for interesting comments. Those aren't reserved to one side of the debate.

Simon Johnson thinks that the R's are "stalling for time in terms of preventing the Dodd bill from coming to the floor of the Senate, while working out a backroom compromise that will greatly gut the substance (on consumer protection, derivatives, and/or the resolution authority). This appears to be what the Republicans are focusing on, with Senator Richard Shelby in the lead.

But there is a potential weak point in this Republican strategy.

If the Democratic leadership becomes fed up with Republican stalling – or otherwise sees an opportunity to paint the Republicans as completely obstructionist, they could actually strengthen the bill.

For example, including something like the Brown-Kaufman amendment (or otherwise addressing the issues posed by our six megabanks) would make it easier for people to understand what is at stake. To win on this issue in November, the Democrats may need to simplify their message and make it more powerful. Some relatively pro-Wall Street Democrats are reluctant to do this, but if the Republicans stand united, nothing will pass – so why not propose something stronger that will go down to clear and memorable defeat, particularly after a searing debate?

The Republicans are not the only ones who can maneuver here. By delaying any progress, they are creating an opportunity within the Democratic side to find ways forward that are not entirely designed by Senator Dodd.

The Goldman Sachs appearance between Senator Carl Levin’s subcommittee on investigations is one wild card tomorrow. President Obama beginning to become more energized and focused on this issue – including at least one speech this week – is another.

Republican stalling tactics have, in effect, introduced a greater element of randomness into the process.

The Republicans obviously want to slow reform or make it change direction. They should be careful what they wish for."

BB, I'm not saying that Chris C is paid to sit around and moderate this place. Definitely not. I'm just saying it takes absolutely zero effort to see how abusive 37th has been for a long time now and it takes absolutely no effort to do something about it.

Instead Chris
1)Promises to do something about abusive posters.
2) Claims to be unaware that 37th is being abusive.
3) Makes comments on here about how 37th should stop because he is concerned about the abuse.

He lied about doing something about the abusive posters, he lied about being unaware of 37th's abuses, and he lied about being concerned about how his spamming isn't fun for everyone else.

Now if Chris C wrote his posts and had nothing to do with this place, that would be one thing. But to come on here and promise to do something about abusive posters and then break that promise and wonder why that bothers people?

BB, why don't you try doing that in your day to day life and then complain about how you don't have time to uphold the promises you make. See how that goes over.

noacoler wrote Perfectly predictable that Republicans would shoot themselves in the feet again.
--------------------------------
Looks like the R's are having trouble getting their feet out of their mouths in order to shoot them.

CC receives salary and benefits to write a newspaper's blog, not manage the comments section. If Mary Matalin, James Carville, David Brooks, E.J. Dionne, (insert random members of the McLaughlin group), etc. were commenting, then I could see CC moderating that discussion. Can't say as the peanut gallery around here (myself included) qualifies. Possible exception being Mark in Austin (/blatant suck-up).

I learn quite a bit around here and not just in CC's posts. If my page up/down key gets a work-out in the process, I can live with that.

This is more from the AZ Hispanic Republicans press release, and is pretty damning:

"It is unfortunate that our own members of the Republican Party believe that we have to trample on our Constitution in order to “enforce our laws.” We believe that Pearce is easing the requirements for “probable cause” and his attempt in expanding our government. What Pearce’s bill proves is that he does not have the answer for illegal immigration within the confines of the American Constitution, and in fact he is not solving the problem by creating more problems."

Perfectly predictable that Republicans would shoot themselves in the feet again. It comes of only listening to each other and convincing themselves that outside SF and NYC everyone is as bigoted and conservative as they are. They're wrong, but once again not even resounding defeat will give them pause. This will hurt them.

If course, tomorrow's blog entry will pretend there are two sides to it. On the one hand. On the other hand.

Maybe the reason the R's are purposely tacking far right is the same reason candidates first tack toward their base and then moderate in time for the general election.

The R's must believe their base is not energized enough, not solid enough. So they take these actions which send thrills into their base, while insulting (AZ undoc law) and scaring moderates (block financial reform). I'm beginning to suspect that this Republican resurgence is actually pretty weak.

They must believe they have time to tack back toward the center to pick up moderates. A rather risky strategy if they miscalculate.

Otherwise, one would have to conclude they are determined to keep tacking right until they are a completely irrelevant party.

I do think Hispanic support hinges on how they treat the immigration issue. Bush and McCain were among the more hispanic friendly Republicans there are. You think these guys are voting for Romney for President? Obama and the Democrats want to improve the condition. The Republicans want to make life miserable for them. As amusing as Chris finds it for 37th to flood the board, he needs to remember that he makes the Republicans look awful. Deport all Mexicans? That's going to win a lot of votes, right? Obviously 37th isn't going to affect a damn thing, but he is a microcosm of the extreme leanings of his party.

A few days ago I was wondering whether Republicans are going through a resurgence or a death spiral. It's pretty clear it's the spiral. Focus on taxes, bailouts and the deficits? Yeah, that would be successful. Filibustering financial reform, harassing brown people, and all that birther garbage in general? Not so much.

Republicans will need some good luck because they are squandering all their good will. This isn't 1994. People haven't seen Republicans out of power for 50 years. The country crashed and burned and drowned under the Republicans not that long ago. People haven't forgotten that. The memory has faded a bit, of course, especially in the face of continuing hardships by a lot of people today. But Republicans had a chance to prove they had changed. That they weren't just going to stick to the status quo and protect those that don't need protection.

And they failed miserably. Republicans would have had a win if they blocked the health care bill. But that is not the case with this bill. People are angry and want to see a solution to the problem. The GOP showed that it is not on the same page or even in the same book as Americans. Good luck getting elected by a few dozen teabaggers.

The following is a statement from Arizona Hispanic Republicans in response to the passage of Senate Bill 1070:

...

"Arizona Hispanic Republicans will not vote for Jan Brewer this year because we are holding her accountable for supporting a bill that violates the Constitution and our Civil Rights. I have sounded the alarm to all Republicans in this state that the passing of this bill is political suicide.

The State of Arizona already has a blemish because we were the last state of the Union to recognize Martin Luther King as an official holiday. Arizona Hispanic Republicans will write an open letter to our RNC Chair, Michael Steele, as he continues to consider where to hold our next 2011 GOP convention. We will caution our RNC Chair to consider the consequences of that because then it could be perceived as rewarding the state that implemented strong anti-Hispanic laws that has rattled our community and our Civil Rights.

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” -- Abe Lincoln"

Apparently there seems to be some idea here - that just because an issue polls for something to be done, then the American public WANTS Obama's version of the solution.

Well, the health care debate ended that little trick.

The American People are a great deal SMARTER than that. They know Obama has his version, and the Republicans have their version of financial regulation reform.

So you are asking WHY can't Obama jam his version through the Republicans?

Because the American People don't trust Obama anymore - that idea is OUT THE WINDOW FOR GOOD.

Obama has already pulled his little tricks with bipartisanship -

And pretending that he will be bipartisan -and then it is ALL ABOUT HIS VERSION.

Credibility is important - and Obama has run through ALL of his.

The only question remaining is how much damage this is going to do to the democratic party - because CLEARLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MUCH TOLERANCE LEFT FOR THE CLOWNS WHO PUT OBAMA INTO OFFICE AND WHO ARE STILL DEFENDING HIM.

12BB, no clue. This makes zero sense to me. It's pretty risky to filibuster the final bill no matter what it was. To filibuster even debate is just death.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 26, 2010 10:20 PM
-------------------------------------
Is there anything in recent polling that would indicate that Americans would see the R's as more credible on financial reform? There must be some reason they would start blocking reform favored by most Americans.

I haven't been following polling as closely as I was, but maybe somebody does.

I'm just pointing out that if I was trying to defend a candidate who made such promises - and then conducted himself the way Obama has done - I would be much more honest and upfront about not being happy about it.

I would like to ask you to go to the archives - and look at what these threats were like in the summer and fall of 2008.

There was a group of people on here who were CONSTANTLY attacking anyone who said anything that wasn't pro-Obama. - There was harassment with the CLEAR INTENTION of driving everyone away who was not part of their group.

These people even sat on this blog in clearly identifyable shifts.

So 12 bar - you have to realize that what has been going on here is broadwayjoe, ddawd - and a bunch of the others were on this blog - using tactics that were far worse for long long periods of time.

That's all I have to say.

In fact, you hear broadwayjoe - talking about the old discussions - the old 37, the new 37 and whatever else he does to discribe what was going on back then.

Looks like Republicans filibustered the procedural vote on finreg. This isn't a filibuster on voting for the final bill. This is a filibuster on even bringing it up for debate. Basically, they want absolutely zero change.

37, if you volunteer to be banned for life from this blog, we can get you into the Hall of Fame on an expedited basis under the Roberto Clemente exception. Just think about it awhile. Please give us your answer by 7:00 p.m. tomorrow. All the Best.

Did anyone ever tell you, 37th, that you are obsessed. You feel entitled to domineering the way you do because you are obsessed. Anyone who complains about your domineering is actually "embarrassed" about defending Obama. You are really strange. I goddamn-guarantee it that no one here is embarrassed about defending Obama.

Don't you realize the major problem here is OBAMA - I'll tell you why - it is Obama who CHOSE to have a vastly unrealistic platform - and he promised bipartisanship, and post-racial policies.

Well - if a candidate is going to go out there and do that - and reap the benefits from such pronouncements -

Then it is entirely fair that later that person is going to come down to Earth - those benefits are going to be balanced out by people pointing out that the candidate did NOT do what he said he was going to do.

That is Obama's fault.

The promise of bipartisanship is in particular focus - that promise meant CENTRIST compromises would be arrived at. However even today, the Senate is taking a COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY VOTE, just to be partisan.

However, Obama and crew want to turn around and benefit from bipartisan negotiation.

It is fair to point all of this out - especially when the democrats are seeking headlines which are deceptive - and don't really point of the truth - which is the Republicans are negotiating in good faith for an agreement.

This is classic - somehow it appears that Obama is the only one allowed to negotiate in bad faith - that game is for him alone - and if someone else does that, it is way out-of-bounds.

It is almost as if Obama was the world to be fooled by him - and if they refuse to be fooled, then he gets angry - AND it's the only play he has - to try to fool someone.

BB, this isn't some stray comment I'm complaining about. Not a once in a while thing. I gave Chris C so much benefit of the doubt with JakeD and Zook. But how the hell can anyone miss what 37th does every single day? It doesn't take babysitting to do this. Just pick any comment section at random, take the scroll wheel and give it a nice, strong spin. No babysitting required. Just a working pair of eyes and about thirty seconds.

And Chris has warned him, what, five times now? And absolutely no change in his behavior. What is he going to do, warn him another five times? He is being disingenuous here. I have defended him before, but Chris C is willingly allowing this to go on with some nonsense intermittent warnings.

I don't know what it takes to ban someone, but my impression was that Chris C simply gives the name of the offender to the tech people and they ban him. If Chris has to go and enter the source code and alter a thousand lines of webpage code or whatever to ban someone, then I wholeheartedly apologize. I certainly don't expect him to do that.

But if Chris just has to give a name to computer people, then all of this is simply a matter of seeing that 37th is flooding the place and then asking him to be banned. It's that simple. It doesn't require babysitting or anything. That's a strawman, BB, and you know it. I'm not asking him to litigate any fight. I'm asking him to get rid of a spammer. Different things. I absolutely refuse to believe that Chris C is not aware of this. This isn't between him and me. He's preventing EVERYONE from discussing. You know this, BB, and Chris C knows it as well. The guy has no intention of doing anything about the spammer. The fact that he comes on here from time to time and pretends to give a damn about 37th's abusive behavior is just adding insult to insult.

It is clear to me that you think it your self appointed job to drag the conversation. That is the problem, get it? You dominate the blog, you repeatedly post increasingly inflammatory posts, waving the bloody shirt, until you can drag the conversation the way you want it. You are selfish and domineering. Now, I will resume my prior stance of PageUp when I see your name.

Yes, fake 37, you will go into the Hall, IMO. As I told Jake, induction requires four votes. I think Jake went through several ballots before he got in so be patient. My guess is that, sadly, your induction may be, well,..posthumous.

The original 37 is already there with the aforementioned JakeD, as well as Aspergirl, Dianne72, King of Zouk, and several other idio- ,er, inductees I can't recall.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 26, 2010 9:00 PM
-------------------------------
In those days, I was new here and didn't know how incredibly self centered you are. I am one of the FEW who has defended you.

Noacoler wrote,
"And if you do try to read it, your eyes will glaze over. It's just junk."

Now, now. That isn't very nice.

Let me dazzle you with my Holmesian logic.

FACT1: You are ostensibly successful in your chosen profession.
FACT2: You are perpetually sullen and crabby.

CONCLUSION1: Your career is not in sales, marketing or any other field of endeavor which would bring you in regular contact with prospective clients and customers.
Instead, your line of work is such that a lack of social skills is not considered a handicap.
CONCLUSION2: You are a liberal Democrat.

spam,jam,whatever you call it, it fills up the blog with lines and lines and LINES of repeated posts, which are meant to dominate the blog. And guess what, 37th accomplishes his aim. He does dominate the blog. He posts 80% or more of the postings.

Is there another blog that allows this? The Fix is the ONLY one that allows anyone to dominate it but simply copying and pasting identical posts, sometimes dozens of times.

I guess we'll just have to wait for a meltdown ala JakeD's "I'm not begging" moment. :)

It's not news or analysis to read Joe Lieberman encouraging Crist to go the Sore Loserman route that Joe made famous against Ned. Crist should run against Marco in the primary and win...or lose and go home.

Jamming is like what a totalitarian government does to a freedom-advocating radio station, a louder signal of pure noise, overpowering the station so nobody can hear it. The jet noises on shortwave radio. That's jamming.

37th will say that we seek to suppress his conservative views. That's a crock. Nobody's trying to get leapin or armpeg banned, foolish though they are .. but then they don't do the exact same post 30 times in each active thread, either.

And if you do try to read it, your eyes will glaze over. It's just junk.

And we all know why Cillizza feigns to see nothing wrong. He's lying. True to form.

Time WAS found to ban CF8--what--three times? LOL. And the bans were based on the content of his posts: calling out bigoted posts and ugly personal attacks. Racism and smears of the President were A-OK, though. Forget about 37's content. Focus on his non-content offense of spamming, saying the same thing over and over for the entire day.

37th may leave big tracks, but he's outnumbered about 10 to 1. As for Crist and Lieberman, anyone's free to run as an independent. I still say losing a primary does not mean your party is throwing you under the bus. Hillary didn't jump ship and run as an independent. Some you win and some you lose.

@DDAWD - CC has a job and it's not nursemaiding the comments section. Any purported ban is of little use and so I don't think that's a solution. So, I'll wait for the Post to move towards a moderated comments section and give my page up/down key a heavy workout in the meantime.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 26, 2010 7:23 PM
________

Actually, when you receive salary and benefits to manage a newspaper's blog, it is your job to monitor abuse. When 37 blogs the same bigoted junk on every thread every day, sometimes from 8am one day to 2am the next day, we have a problem. At times his posts represent about 80 percent of the posts on the thread; he's basically talking to himself...not a good thing. Forget about 37's content, which is misinformed and usually racist, and deal with the non-content offense of spamming, the idiotic carpet posting of the same sewage.

Up to now the main bannable offense has been to call out bigoted posts, a bizarre position given the Post multicultural readership, see, e.g., multiple bannings of CF8. The "moderation" the Post has in mind is more like sanitization. Only when the posts the bear the poster's real name or the poster is on some favored list will they be viewable by the casual visitor to the blog.

What nonsense. There are no daily fights here, and nobody is asking you to intervene between people who don't like each other. The point is one spammer who is jamming the board with repetitious crap. As you can see, and as you choose to ignore.

You could find a little more time to monitor the comments if you took a little less time writing complete bilge like that Dan Coats piece.

Why don't you wait until broadwayjoe gets here, so you can all gang up more effectively.

Noacoler - you say you have complaints here? Really? We didn't know. How many times ahve you been banned ???

On the topic of Lieberman - I have a problem with losing the primary, and then going ahead and filing for the general election. In a sense, Crist will be doing virtually this if he files as an Independent - he has been in the Republican primary process the whole way through.

Crist should just file as a Republican or just get out.

I suppose the best thing Crist could do is pull out of this primary - and wait for a better race - maybe he can find a Congressional race to go into.

He appointed his friend to the other Senate seat - so waiting two years and running for that seat is not easy either.

It is a long way to November - and you never know what could happen with the Rubio campaign - Crist could just try to stick it out.

@DDAWD - CC has a job and it's not nursemaiding the comments section. Any purported ban is of little use and so I don't think that's a solution. So, I'll wait for the Post to move towards a moderated comments section and give my page up/down key a heavy workout in the meantime.

It will be a good day when Smug Joe Lieberman gets booted out...or simply retires. Who cares, as long as he goes? He was always a Republican in drag and I don't understand why he hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid and joined the ranks. Sadly, he will no doubt run for a fifth term. He is infatuated with himself and the political power available to him if he inserts himself as a "bridge" (more like a footstool) between the Party of No and the Dems.

Despite my personal disagreement with Lieberman's stance on most everything...I do like the idea of independents or even a third and fourth party to break up the duopoly in the U.S. political system.

Although parliamentary systems around the globe are typically dominated by two main parties, they still rely on the vote from the remaining five or ten smaller parties to obtain a majority. This fosters laws and decisions that better reflects the diversity of the people and higher voter participation.

Let me second what DDAWD said. We have one poster who makes no effort to post anything relevant, and who just posts the same hysterical shouting over and over, the same post dozens or hundreds of times, day after day and in thread after thread. Cillizza bats his eyes and says "forward me the offending posts."

If you're an Obama hater, you go unmoderated until you go as far over the top as Jake did in his 4/1 meltdown.

If you're someone who dislikes such Republican virtues as racism and homophobia, you're in danger of being banned.

The "Lieberman Analogy" looks really good at first, but it really does not apply.

First Lieberman was running for the same office - and he has been in there for a long, long time.

Second, although Crist is a sitting Governor, it just isn't the same dynamic as someone challenging to take THE SAME JOB ONE HAS BEEN HOLDING.

Third, bolting the Republican party is different than bolting the Democratic party - The Republicans are already starting the "you will be dead to me" routine - as opposed to the democrats - who really weren't holding it against Lieberman that he lost the primary, then turned around and filed for the general.

Fourth - the fundraising situation isn't EVEN CLOSE - Lieberman's fundraising was strong - and he knew it would stay with him through the general.

The fundraising situation with Crist is not so sure - he thinks its going to dry up -

The truth of the matter is fundraising for a federal position is different from fundraising for a state position - Crist has to bridge that gap - switching out of the Republican party is going to make it even worse.

Chris, no one buys your feigned concern about 37th spamming the board. We're not all a bunch of bumbling morons. He's not going to stop spamming and you know it. You promised to get rid of the troublemakers and from what I can see, that was an outright lie.

You should get rid of him, but if you won't, don't pretend that you give a cr*p about whether the board is spammed.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you missed some of the other most offensive posters. But there is no way in hell you have been missing the fact that this guy has been spamming each and every one of your posts.

ATTENTION SEN. LIEBERMAN: AMERICANS ARE BEING SERIOUSLY HARMED BY A COVERT HOMELAND SECURITY-LED MULTI-AGENCY PROGRAM. WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?

All of those cell towers you see all over America -- and other nations -- are NOT all for phone calls.

Some of them are TORTURE TOWERS -- part of a nationwide microwave/laser radio frequency "directed energy weapon" system that is being used by operatives of the multi-agency Homeland Security-run "fusion center" network to silently torture, impaiir, and physically and neurologically degrade the functioning and well-being of extrajudicially, unjustly '"targeted" citizens.

And apparently, the genocidal use of this precision-targeted domestic weapon system to attack and harm U.S. citizens is being done WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF CONGRESS or high state officials.

I'm curious as to the reaction of conservatives to Crist and Lieberman will be the mirror image of the reaction of liberals. I've received vehement disagreement for my characterization of Lieberman as mostly liberal. Crist is a mainstream Republican (and Rubio's not that far off).

Assume that Crist goes independent (probable) and wins election (tough, but who knows). Perhaps Lieberman and Crist can form the Wallflowers Caucus. Heck, have McCain and Bennet join them after losing primaries. It would be quite interesting to have an independent caucus. At the current rate, you could add in Ben Nelson and Lindsay Graham.

Nice to see you back in the sticks, CC. Incidentally, you MUST head up to Clemyjontri park sometime with Charlie Fix. It is an amazing park.

Lieberman, no longer needed by the Democrats, is probably looking at how Crist fares to see if he can caucus with the Republicans. After all, one sore loser side switching hypocrite deserves another...